Draft Value Chart 'firepower' by team

Nice post Nick

I was looking for something like the real value chart. The standard chart just inflates the value of the top selections. It's awesome to be one of the top teams and still have the most "firepower" in the draft. I'm hoping we use that to our advantage, either to get a player we covet, or to trade for future selections.

Originally posted by SofaKing:
Nice post Nick

I was looking for something like the real value chart. The standard chart just inflates the value of the top selections. It's awesome to be one of the top teams and still have the most "firepower" in the draft. I'm hoping we use that to our advantage, either to get a player we covet, or to trade for future selections.

Well, close to the most firepower. I'd rather have Miami's picks. or Minnesota's

If I'm not mistaken, according to Schuckers' study, 10 6-7'th round picks are worth about 1 1st round pick. And I can see how you could say that if you look at Quarterbacks alone, Brady was taken in the 6'th, Romo went undrafted, and most other top 20 QBs were taken in the first round. The trouble is, you have to wait years for the next Brady or Romo to turn up, while if you draft QBs with 1st round picks you're likely to get a good one in 1-3 years. So he undervalues early picks because he hasn't considered the time it takes to get an elite player.

To restate, if you need a starting safety now, trading a 1st round pick for 10 6-7'th round picks isn't likely to help you right away.

There are also some obvious real world problems: no team has enough late round picks to make such a trade possible, and if they did, there may be too many players in training camp to evaluate them properly.

Just IMO.

Originally posted by nickbradley:
Not sure if you understand what peer review is, but his findings are consistent with other time periods. There in his bibliography.

Its obvious.

Appearing in a peer-reviewed journal is completely unrelated to if his findings hold across other time periods. He's looking at the full population from 1991-2001. By design he's not relying on any data beyond this time period, meaning no claims can be made to if his findings hold up beyond 1991-2001.

It's cool, but 1) you have to accept his metric for "quality" as meaningful, 2) you have to assume that his findings are true across time periods despite him having no data across other time periods, 3) you have to assume that games started and played are -- save for quality -- independent of draft position*, and 4) you have to be completely agnostic to player position (e.g. from 1991-2001 there is good value in the third round, but is this true of QBs if you need a QB, or Centers if you need a center? There's no way to know.)

*This is the one (#3) that's most questionable to me, by far. I think even calling it questionable is really generous, actually.


Just for fun: Paraag Marathe is on the editorial board for the journal this was published in, which is pretty neat.


Edit: worth saying that while I'm being a little critical, intuitively, I do agree with his takeaway that top picks are overvalued, and that the third round (particularly the top of half of the third round) tends to provide a lot of nice value (e.g. where we tend to see players that are still high quality, but have fallen to this range due to the random chance of injury, being overlooked after the hype machine of the off-season, having strong performance but not being of prototypical size or speed or strength, etc.). The third round is where you find the Frank Gore's (injury), Russell Wilson's (too short), and Terrell Owens' (small school) of the world.

Originally posted by nickbradley:
OK - then they should trust people that do.

Are statisticians inherently honest?

Mark Twain never mentioned statisticians specifically, but he clearly felt that statistics were not to be trusted.

Sorry to be ignorant/lazy but have they announced the compensatory picks yet?

Originally posted by pdizo916:
Sorry to be ignorant/lazy but have they announced the compensatory picks yet?

Another post in a different thread said the comp picks will be announced on Monday (March 18) at the owners meeting.

Can not remember who had the information.

Originally posted by buck:
Another post in a different thread said the comp picks will be announced on Monday (March 18) at the owners meeting.

Can not remember who had the information.

Why do they wait so f**king long?


In fact, why is the draft soooo far away? It should be bumped up to the first week of april IMO. Why the extra time?

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by nickbradley:
Not sure if you understand what peer review is, but his findings are consistent with other time periods. There in his bibliography.

Its obvious.

It may be obvious to you, but some of us do not understand statistics all that well.

Depends on what you believe to be more true:


#1 pick of the draft is the equivalent to the picks:

• Old Value Chart #29, #30, #31, #32 (all first round) and #35 (high 2nd)
• Schuckers #29(first round) and #99(high 4th)

2-1 or #33 (first pick of 2nd round) draft is the equivalent to the picks:

• Old Value Chart #63, #64 (2nd round) and #144 (5th)
• Schuckers #63 and #129 (top 5th)

Originally posted by nickbradley:
rule of thumb: value is maximized in the late 2nd/early 3rd. trade up or down towards that point.

Ding Ding, Ding. NE always said they would take 2 second round draft picks over one first round pick any day of the week. The contract is cheaper and the players play with a chip on their shoulder because they are not a first round pick.

I personally would want to trade the 4th, 5th and two 6ths to trade up into round 3.

one pick in round 1
Two picks in round 2
Three picks in round 3.

6 players chosen in the top 100. Not bad. Use compensatory picks for Kicker, ST players. Etc.

Originally posted by 9erred:
Ding Ding, Ding. NE always said they would take 2 second round draft picks over one first round pick any day of the week. The contract is cheaper and the players play with a chip on their shoulder because they are not a first round pick.

I personally would want to trade the 4th, 5th and two 6ths to trade up into round 3.

one pick in round 1
Two picks in round 2
Three picks in round 3.

6 players chosen in the top 100. Not bad. Use compensatory picks for Kicker, ST players. Etc.

Trade down towards the 70th pick, Trade up towards the 70th pick.

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by nickbradley:
Not sure if you understand what peer review is, but his findings are consistent with other time periods. There in his bibliography.

Its obvious.

It may be obvious to you, but some of us do not understand statistics all that well.

peer review means others in the field who are knowledgeable about the subject check the validity of the work and give it a thumbs up

Would both of our 3rd rounders be enough to get into the middle of the first round?

I'm against a big trade-up like that for the most part, but I might be ok with it for Sheldon or Star (if heart condition is ok). There might be a drop-off in defensive line talent after them, but I just don't see it for corners and safeties.

If we can trade both 3rds, that leaves both 2nds to grab a CB and a safety. It would also allow them to do whatever they want on day 3 (would still have the 4ths, 5ths, 6th and 7ths to play with).